Ed Radar and I are right. DSLR's and EF lens are yesterdays news

They probably took all of those L version#3 lenses and slightly revise the optic formula for RF

Trey T wrote in post #19018238
They probably took all of those L version#3 lenses and slightly revise the optic formula for RF

Great Great Point

version 3 and add an R mount and whamo your in

umphotography wrote in post #19019207
Great Great Point

version 3 and add an R mount and whamo your in

Then add another +$500 since the RF is NEW.

Naturalist wrote in post #19019244
.
Then add another +$500 since the RF is NEW.
.

.
They're talking specifically about the two big white primes that are priced at $12,000 and $13,000 and the one 70-200mm that is priced at $1,800. . I can't help but to think that when Canon releases RF versions, they will be more than an additional $500.

There is already an RF version of the 70-200mm f2.8, and at $2,700, it is $900 more than the $1,800 EF v3.

I would expect that when they come out with RF versions of the other two v3 L lenses, they will be at least a couple thousand more than the current EF versions.
.

Trey T wrote in post #19018238
.
They probably took all of those L version#3 lenses and slightly revise the optic formula for RF
.

.
I'm not sure why Trey said, "all of those L version #3 lenses". . As far as I know, there are only three L lenses that have a version 3 designation:

the 600mm f4 IS v3

the 400mm f2.8 IS v3

and the 70-200mm f2.8 v3.

Am I missing anything? . Are there any other L series lenses that are designated as a version 3?

.

Whoops! Did not realize the discussion was on huge super teles.

Yes, my +$500 more was purposefully conservative.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19019274
.
They're talking specifically about the two big white primes that are priced at $12,000 and $13,000 and the one 70-200mm that is priced at $1,800. . I can't help but to think that when Canon releases RF versions, they will be more than an additional $500.

There is already an RF version of the 70-200mm f2.8, and at $2,700, it is $900 more than the $1,800 EF v3.

I would expect that when they come out with RF versions of the other two v3 L lenses, they will be at least a couple thousand more than the current EF versions.
.

.
I'm not sure why Trey said, "all of those L version #3 lenses". . As far as I know, there are only three L lenses that have a version 3 designation:

the 600mm f4 IS v3

the 400mm f2.8 IS v3

and the 70-200mm f2.8 v3.

Am I missing anything? . Are there any other L series lenses that are designated as a version 3?

.

The RF lenses must have come from some designs they already had; hence, the arbitrary "version 3".

In fact, I didn't even know the version 3 of L lenses even existed, but now you pointed it out, Canon engineer's must have nearly perfected all of the EF L lenses. Not to mention, the L lenses are top pedigree of Canon's lens line-ups.

If I ever quiver about the details, it's to invoke humor or exaggeration. Otherwise, I'm not very technical like many of you.